Judge rules £160m case against Scottish Government over botched recycling scheme can proceed
A judge has ruled that waste management company Biffa can proceed with suing the Scottish Government for about £160 million following the collapse of the deposit return scheme (DRS).
Lawyers representing the Government had attempted to have the case dismissed, but Lord Clark ruled it can go ahead at the Court of Session. Biffa’s lawyers say Lorna Slater, the Greens co-leader who was a minister at the time, “negligently misrepresented” the state of the scheme which led to the company investing significantly.
Preparations for the new scheme had been made with the construction of return sites across Scotland, including at supermarkets in Aberdeen, before it was pulled. In their legal arguments, they highlighted a letter from Ms Slater to Biffa’s chief executive in May 2022, which set out ministers’ “unwavering commitment” to deliver the DRS in August 2023.
READ MORE: Quiz 'on brink of administration' leaving futures of 17 Scottish stores in doubt
READ MORE: King Charles 'sends message' to Prince Andrew as Royal Lodge 'decision' made
However, the Scottish Government changed its plans when UK ministers used the Internal Market Act (IMA) to rule glass bottles could not be included. A UK-wide DRS is not expected to begin before 2027. Lord Clark said the date on which the Scottish Government sought an exclusion from the IMA is a “matter in dispute between the parties”.
Circularity Scotland, which was set up to administer the Scottish DRS, fell into administration in June 2023 and Biffa’s contract was terminated. The company said it expected to make profits of £114.8 million over 10 years through the contract and it invested £51.4 million in assets like sorting machines as it prepared for the “go live” date.
The Government’s lawyers have previously said the decision by Biffa to start spending money on the scheme was a “commercial risk” the company had “chosen to take”. They denied Ms Slater had made any “negligent misrepresentation” and said ministers did not owe a duty of care to Biffa.
In his ruling on Tuesday, Lord Clark said the case would not be dismissed.
He said: “On the first part of the claim, for the pursuer to succeed at the proof the court will have to be satisfied on the following points: there was an assumption of responsibility; the duty was not inconsistent with the statutory powers and duties of the defenders; the pursuer relied, and reasonably relied, upon the defenders’ conduct; the breaches of duty occurred; and the loss was caused by the alleged breaches.
“On the alternative case on negligent misrepresentation, the pursuer mainly requires to prove that the pursuer’s contention on the proper interpretation of the letter, when viewed in its full context, is correct, and that the pursuer relied, and reasonably relied, upon it, causing the loss of costs.
“Questions also remain in play about the amount of loss on costs and profit which the pursuer can establish.”
A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “The Scottish Government cannot comment on live litigation.”